1970: an Almost Complete Picture

B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
I will provide many more no worries, I have a library ;)

And by the way, Barcelona came after NY and Los Angeles.
Did they give the number one seed to Laver because Los Angeles was more important than NY?
Click to expand...

Absurd question! Answer: PSW was played AFTER FH.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
NM, Where is your logic? Laver won most of the 1971 WCT tournaments. Rosewall might have won the biggest tournaments after 1969 (Laver has a terrible balance there) but Laver was the more consistent player of the two winning many more tough events than Rosewall.

You still underrate the value of prestige. That's why Laver was seeded No.1 at the 1971 Wimbledon and not the holder, Newcombe.
Click to expand...

Can you define prestige for me in the context that you're using it? Do you mean they were seeding Laver based on his lifetime record on grass rather than the present?
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
NM, Where is your logic? Laver won most of the 1971 WCT tournaments. Rosewall might have won the biggest tournaments after 1969 (Laver has a terrible balance there) but Laver was the more consistent player of the two winning many more tough events than Rosewall.

You still underrate the value of prestige. That's why Laver was seeded No.1 at the 1971 Wimbledon and not the holder, Newcombe.
Click to expand...
The problem Bobby is that you don't know what to reply anymore.
Where is my logic?
Look my logic ;)

Philadelphia72 seeds:
1. Rosewall
2. Laver
3. Okker
4. Ashe
5. Drysdale
6. Lutz
7. Riessen
8. Newcombe

WCT Finals 1971
W Rosewall
F Laver
SF Okker
SF Ashe
QF Drysdale
QF Lutz
QF Riessen
QF Newcombe

I see NO prestige here.
I see the 8 players of Dallas (first eight players in the WCT 1971 rankings) named the first 8 seeds of Phialdelphia, in THE SAME EXACT ORDER of the Wct Finals results.

Again, wake up: seeds were always done according some rankings and Laver is number one at the beginning of 1971
 
T

thrust

Legend
NoMercy said:
The problem Bobby is that you don't know what to reply anymore.
Where is my logic?
Look my logic ;)

Philadelphia72 seeds:
1. Rosewall
2. Laver
3. Okker
4. Ashe
5. Drysdale
6. Lutz
7. Riessen
8. Newcombe

WCT Finals 1971
W Rosewall
F Laver
SF Okker
SF Ashe
QF Drysdale
QF Lutz
QF Riessen
QF Newcombe

I see NO prestige here.
I see the 8 players of Dallas (first eight players in the WCT 1971 rankings) named the first 8 seeds of Phialdelphia, in THE SAME EXACT ORDER of the Wct Finals results.

Again, wake up: seeds were always done according some rankings and Laver is number one at the beginning of 1971
Click to expand...
The same is true today. Rome has the same quality players as the FO, but the FO is more prestigious, just as the WCT finals was more prestigious than Philadelphia though they had the same top players. Also at the FO and WCT finals All matches were best of 5, rather than best of 3, which made them more difficult to win.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
thrust said:
The same is true today. Rome has the same quality players as the FO, but the FO is more prestigious, just as the WCT finals was more prestigious than Philadelphia though they had the same top players. Also at the FO and WCT finals All matches were best of 5, rather than best of 3, which made them more difficult to win.
Click to expand...
OK.
But why are you telling me this?
My post was meant to (try to) explain Bobby that the seeds in any given tournaments were compiled using a previous ranking (internal or official).
Your post is about something totally different
 
T

thrust

Legend
NoMercy said:
OK.
But why are you telling me this?
My post was meant to (try to) explain Bobby that the seeds in any given tournaments were compiled using a previous ranking (internal or official).
Your post is about something totally different
Click to expand...
I guess I misunderstood your reply to Bobby. I thought you were saying that, because of the very similar draws, Phili was just as prestigious as the WCT final. Sorry about that!
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
thrust said:
I guess I misunderstood your reply to Bobby. I thought you were saying that, because of the very similar draws, Phili was just as prestigious as the WCT final. Sorry about that!
Click to expand...
No :)

I said that the seeds of the first WCT tournaments of 1972 depended on the WCT year end rankings of 1971.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
Wrong. The seedings changed every three or four week in the old pro time and probably also in the early open era. So the No.1 seed is mostly the top player of the recent tournaments.

You underrate the enormous prestige Laver had in that time.

I doubt that many newspapers in late 1970 made year-end rankings as the acknowledged experts like Tingay did.
Click to expand...
Now it's time for the WCT rankings
I told you, I will post many stuff, what are you going to post?

Just to make everything clear: Philadelphia started at beginning of February and there was no tournaments in the previous two months.

From The Sydney Morning Herald.
"WCT have listed the seedings for the first three tournaments in the $1,000,000 World Championships of Tennis. The seedings will hold for the Philadelphia International, which starts today, the Dunlop-Australian Open and the Sportface International, at Chicago from March 22 to 28. They will then be reviewed after every third tournament."
(Actually from Chicago they started to use the WCT race, but this doesn't change the main point: Laver first at the beginning of 1971 season).

This is the WCT ranking BEFORE the 1971 WCT season started.

1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Newcombe
4. Roche
5. Ashe
6. Okker
7. Emerson
8. Gimeno
9. Taylor
10. Ralston
11. Pilic
12. Stolle
13. Drysdale
14. Riessen
15. El Shafei
16. Cox
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
Bobby, please provide us with the ranking system of the "top" experts. But not the ranking of the experts. I am very curious to see their system of evaluation if there was such a system.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that system too! The "official" rankings of the "top," "official," "experts," must be an extremely thoughtful and sophisticated system. My guess is that it starts with 3 boilermakers on an empty stomach. :D
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Now it's time for the WCT rankings
I told you, I will post many stuff, what are you going to post?

Just to make everything clear: Philadelphia started at beginning of February and there was no tournaments in the previous two months.

From The Sydney Morning Herald.
"WCT have listed the seedings for the first three tournaments in the $1,000,000 World Championships of Tennis. The seedings will hold for the Philadelphia International, which starts today, the Dunlop-Australian Open and the Sportface International, at Chicago from March 22 to 28. They will then be reviewed after every third tournament."
(Actually from Chicago they started to use the WCT race, but this doesn't change the main point: Laver first at the beginning of 1971 season).

This is the WCT ranking BEFORE the 1971 WCT season started.

1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Newcombe
4. Roche
5. Ashe
6. Okker
7. Emerson
8. Gimeno
9. Taylor
10. Ralston
11. Pilic
12. Stolle
13. Drysdale
14. Riessen
15. El Shafei
16. Cox
Click to expand...

Wait, WHAT? Laver was the #1 ranked WCT player right after 1970. How could that be? All of the "official, top, experts," ranked Laver 4th in 1970, no? Did they not know what they were talking about? Did the WCT have no respect for the "official top experts," of the early 70's? This is very troubling, indeed!

PS: And, Emerson over Gimeno? This is crazy! CRAZY I tell you!
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Limpinhitter said:
Wait, WHAT? Laver was the #1 ranked WCT player right after 1970. How could that be? All of the "official, top, experts," ranked Laver 4th in 1970, no? Did they not know what they were talking about? Did the WCT have no respect for the "official top experts," of the early 70's? This is very troubling, indeed!

PS: And, Emerson over Gimeno? This is crazy! CRAZY I tell you!
Click to expand...
Why crazy?
Emerson is over Gimeno also in Martini&Rossi rankings: Emerson 8th, Gimeno 10th
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
I obviously know about this.

First of all, it's called Martini & Rossi Gold Racquet (so not ROSSO :D ).

Second they have Laver at second place, where's Newcombe?
He's the Wimbledon Champion.
How is it possible that 10 "experts" didn't know that only the majors matter?
The point system awarded 10 points to first choice, 9 points to second choice, 8 points to third choice and so on.
Rosewall was ranked first by 7 seven of them. What about the ones that rabked Laver first? They didn't know about the rules?
Or there were no rules?
Click to expand...

NM, Thanks for the correction. But why your mocking emoji??

Again: You seem to know all (my great respect!!). But you are rather weak regarding your conclusions and regarding your (arrogant) behaviour. That's a pity. You could and should learn a lot from krosero who also is great in his knowledge AND is great in his conclusions AND (mostly) in his behaviour!!
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Can you define prestige for me in the context that you're using it? Do you mean they were seeding Laver based on his lifetime record on grass rather than the present?
Click to expand...

Yes, many people had huge respect for the Double Grand Slammer plus Laver was the most prolific tournament winner also in the first years after 1969.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
The problem Bobby is that you don't know what to reply anymore.
Where is my logic?
Look my logic ;)

Philadelphia72 seeds:
1. Rosewall
2. Laver
3. Okker
4. Ashe
5. Drysdale
6. Lutz
7. Riessen
8. Newcombe

WCT Finals 1971
W Rosewall
F Laver
SF Okker
SF Ashe
QF Drysdale
QF Lutz
QF Riessen
QF Newcombe

I see NO prestige here.
I see the 8 players of Dallas (first eight players in the WCT 1971 rankings) named the first 8 seeds of Phialdelphia, in THE SAME EXACT ORDER of the Wct Finals results.

Again, wake up: seeds were always done according some rankings and Laver is number one at the beginning of 1971
Click to expand...

AP (arrogant poster): The problem with you (probably not only for me) is your outrageous arrogance!!!

FYI: I already explained to our Merciless God that the prestige of Laver as almost unbeatable decreased with the years.
 
Last edited:
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
AO (arrogant poster): The problem with you (probably not only for me) is your outrageous arrogance!!!

FYI: I already explained to our Merciless God that the prestige of Laver as almost unbeatable decreased with the years.
Click to expand...
Again, you have no replies.
That's why you focus on the arrogance and on the weak conclusions (because you don't like them).
Seeds in Philadelphia are exactly the results of WCT finals.
Can't you notice that?
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Now it's time for the WCT rankings
I told you, I will post many stuff, what are you going to post?

Just to make everything clear: Philadelphia started at beginning of February and there was no tournaments in the previous two months.

From The Sydney Morning Herald.
"WCT have listed the seedings for the first three tournaments in the $1,000,000 World Championships of Tennis. The seedings will hold for the Philadelphia International, which starts today, the Dunlop-Australian Open and the Sportface International, at Chicago from March 22 to 28. They will then be reviewed after every third tournament."
(Actually from Chicago they started to use the WCT race, but this doesn't change the main point: Laver first at the beginning of 1971 season).

This is the WCT ranking BEFORE the 1971 WCT season started.

1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Newcombe
4. Roche
5. Ashe
6. Okker
7. Emerson
8. Gimeno
9. Taylor
10. Ralston
11. Pilic
12. Stolle
13. Drysdale
14. Riessen
15. El Shafei
16. Cox
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming that (at least sometimes) the seedings changed after three weeks.

If there were no tournaments for two months, then the results of the last events in 1970 counted. As told Laver was successful in late 1970 while Rosewall was not! Furthermore Laver had won the prestigious 1970 TCC over Rosewall even though Rod was not No.1 in 1970.

Where is your problem?

Stop your arrogant behaviour! You emerge as the most arrogant poster in this forum. Thus I cannot have respect for you even though you know more details than we all (other posters).
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Again, you have no replies.
That's why you focus on the arrogance and on the weak conclusions (because you don't like them).
Seeds in Philadelphia are exactly the results of WCT finals.
Can't you notice that?
Click to expand...

ARROGANT POSTER: Of course I focus on your arrogance as it is obvious and very telling!

I have given you my arguments but it's not my fault that you totally ignore them!

I think you mix the 1971 Philadelphia with the 1972 Philadelphia. Do you want to confuse your readers????

Yes I don't like some of your wrong and insulting conclusions (Tingay, Collins et al calling Mickey Mouse etc., for example).
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
ARROGANT POSTER: Of course I focus on your arrogance as it is obvious and very telling!

I have given you my arguments but it's not my fault that you totally ignore them!

I think you mix the 1971 Philadelphia with the 1972 Philadelphia. Do you want to confuse your readers????

Yes I don't like some of your wrong and insulting conclusions (Tingay, Collins et al calling Mickey Mouse etc., for example).
Click to expand...
I'm not mixing them.
I'm showing how they built the seedings. But you are so focused on saving Mickey Mouse b**t that you don't realize that
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
Thanks for confirming that (at least sometimes) the seedings changed after three weeks.

If there were no tournaments for two months, then the results of the last events in 1970 counted. As told Laver was successful in late 1970 while Rosewall was not! Furthermore Laver had won the prestigious 1970 TCC over Rosewall even though Rod was not No.1 in 1970.

Where is your problem?

Stop your arrogant behaviour! You emerge as the most arrogant poster in this forum. Thus I cannot have respect for you even though you know more details than we all (other posters).
Click to expand...

Since there are some rumours coming from our Laver fanboys (Laver Oldboy Limpin etc) that Laver was the best player in 1970, 1971, 1972 and maybe another few years afterwards, here the balance of the "best player" of the world at major tournaments 1970 to 1972:

Laver played the 1970 Wimbledon and finished in fourth round. He played the 1970 US Open and finished in fourth round. He entered the 1971 AO and finished in third round. He entered the 1971 Wimbledon and finished in QFs. He played the 1971 WCT Finals and lost in the final. He entered the 1972 WCT FInals and lost in the final. He entered the 1972 US Open and finished in fourth round. Balance: No win; 2 finals; no SF

As a comparison with the truly best player of that period, Rosewall entered the 1970 Wimbledon: reached final; he entered the 1970 US Open: won title; he played in the 1971 AO: won title; he entered the 1971 Wimbledon: reached SFs; he entered the 1971 WCT Finals: won title; he played in the 1972 AO: won title; he played in the 1972 WCT Finals: won title; he entered the 1972 US Open: lost in second round. Balance: 5 wins; 1 final; 1 SF

It's fair to mention that Laver did win a few "almost majors": 1970 TCC, 1970 Dunlop Sydney; 1971 TCC.

Just for our posting God: Rosewall was seeded very highly: 2nd at the 1972 US Open NOT because he would have been the 1971 No.1 player (he was ranked mostly No.3 or 4) but because he won the previous major, the 1972 Dallas final.
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
I'm not mixing them.
I'm showing how they built the seedings. But you are so focused on saving Mickey Mouse b**t that you don't realize that
Click to expand...

You quoted a newspaper statement of early 1971 about the WCT seedings. But you also gave us the 1972 Philadelphia seedings.

I will not answer anymore if you don't stop insulting experts and mocking fellow posters!
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
You quoted a newspaper statement of early 1971 about the WCT seedings. But you also gave us the 1972 Philadelphia seedings.

I will not answer anymore if you don't stop insulting experts and mocking fellow posters!
Click to expand...

yes and both of them support his point.
Go and read it again.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
yes and both of them support his point.
Go and read it again.
Click to expand...

abmk, Thanks. I did not know that you and NoMercy believe that Rosewall was the acknowledged No.1 player in 1971! As a Rosewall admirer I'm glad to read this.

Do you know the difference between the WCT No.1 and the overall No.1???
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
abmk, Thanks. I did not know that you and NoMercy believe that Rosewall was the acknowledged No.1 player in 1971! As a Rosewall admirer I'm glad to read this.
Click to expand...

no, neither of us said that.

"I see the 8 players of Dallas (first eight players in the WCT 1971 rankings) named the first 8 seeds of Phialdelphia, in THE SAME EXACT ORDER of the Wct Finals results."

In 71, Newk was most widely regarded as #1. Smith, Rosewall and Laver had claims as well.

BobbyOne said:
aDo you know the difference between the WCT No.1 and the overall No.1???
Click to expand...

yes, obviously.

71 had both WCT and Grand Prix. So you'd have to look at both to decide #1. (+Davis Cup)

-------

there are 2 different instances he used to show his overall point :

1. start of 71 WCT --- seedings were based on overall performance in 1970.
2. start of 72 WCT -- seedings were based on the order in which the WCT finals ended. Hence Rosewall, Laver, Okker, Ashe etc.

The overall point being they based it (seeding) on performance in tournaments in the previous year.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
So now, we have from dwrightcharles :

(https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...number-1-for-1970.256340/page-4#post-10843265)

Martini Rossi award – 10 journalists

1 Rosewall (97 pts) – i.e. at least 7 first place votes out of 10 rankers
2 Laver (89 pts) – probably 3 first place votes?
3 Newcombe (81 pts)
4 Roche (averages to 70 pts)
5 Ashe (averages to 60 pts)
6 Richey (averages to 50 pts)
7 Okker (averages to 40 pts)
8 Emerson (averages to 30 pts)
9 Nastase (averages to 20 pts)
10 Gimeno (averages to 10 pts)


World Tennis – Joe McCauley

1 Newcombe
2 Rosewall
3 Roche
4 Laver
5 Ashe
6 Nastase
7 Okker
8 Kodes
9 Taylor
10 Richey


Bud Collins

1 Newcombe
2 Rosewall
3 Roche
4 Laver
5 Nastase
6 Okker
7 Richey
8 Smith
9 Ashe
10 Gimeno


Rino Tommasi

1 Rosewall
2 Newcombe
3 Laver
4 Roche
5 Ashe
6 Richey
7 Smith
8 Nastase
9 Okker
10 Kodes


And then some partial rankings


Judith Elian of L’equipe

1 Rosewall
2 Newcombe
3 Roche
4 Laver


WCT Panel of early 1971
1 Laver
2 Rosewall
3 Newcombe


The London Times

1 Laver


John Newcombe (as ranker in his book)

1 Laver


Lance Tingay

1 Newcombe
2 Rosewall


Robert Geist

1 Newcombe – tie
1 Rosewall – tie
1 Laver – tie


Following the method of the Martini-Rossi award, we can summarize the opinion by giving 10 pts for 1st place, 9 pts for 2nd, 8 pts for 3rd, etc for each of the above lists. Where there is a tie, the tied positions are added together and each player gets the average. Where the list is incomplete, I have assumed that unlisted players score at the highest possible unlisted position... thus for Tingay’s rankings I tally 8 pts for both Laver and Roche as potential third placers... but I only did this for the top four spots, since those are the only spots in which the potential #1’s figure. For the totals below, the 5-10 spots are based on the complete top-10 lists only.


Here’s how it adds up:

1 Rosewall 180 pts = 97+9+9+10+10+9+9+9+9+9 (of which there were at least 9.33 first place votes)
2 Laver 165 pts = 89+7+7+8+7+10+10+10+8+9 (probably 6.33 first place votes)
3 Newcombe 164 pts = 81+10+10+9+9+8+9+9+10+9 (probably 3.33 first place votes)

----------------------

Now , based on the info got recently,

1. Tingay rated Laver as #3 ( so that remains at 8 points). (BobbyOne mentioned this and NoMercy gave the full ratings from the Daily Telegraph)

2. Collins rated at the end of 1970 had -- Laver at #1, Rosewall at #2, Newk at #3. Counting this equally as the ratings in his encyclopedia. (posted by Drob -- article in Boston Globe)

3. article in the Schenectady Gazette from 17. Dezember 1970, which says that Laver was voted the top international player of 1970. ( urban )

4. San Antonio Express, 18 Dec 1970.
Laver as #1 (NoMercy).

So going by that we now have :

Rosewall = 180+9+9 = 198
Laver = 165+10+10 = 185
Newk = 164+8+9 = 181

Rosewall being rated #1 by : atleast 7 in Martini Rossi, Tommassi, Judith Elian, Geist = 10

Laver being rated #1 by : probably 3 in Martini Rossi, WCT Panel of early 71, Bud Collins at end of 1970, London times, Geist, article in the Schenectady Gazette, article in San Antonio Express, Newk himself in his book = 10

Newk being rated #1 by : McCauley, Collins in his encyclopedia, Tingay, Geist = 4
 
Last edited:
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
NoMercy said:
I'm not mixing them.
I'm showing how they built the seedings. But you are so focused on saving Mickey Mouse b**t that you don't realize that
Click to expand...
Guys, let's see what it is written in an article I found from the open part of the library of the American Congress:
"Newcombe and the panel of journalists which made the 1971 WCT draw considered Laver the best player because he won most tournaments (15), earned the most prize money and had a dominantly positive head-to-head record against both Rosewall (5–0) and Newcombe (3–0)." It concerns the 70 YE ranking.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
abmk said:
there are 2 different instances he used to show his overall point :

1. start of 71 WCT --- seedings were based on overall performance in 1970.
2. start of 72 WCT -- seedings were based on the order in which the WCT finals ended. Hence Rosewall, Laver, Okker, Ashe etc.

The overall point being they based it (seeding) on performance in tournaments in the previous year.
Click to expand...
Perfect.
Cristally clear
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
Just for our posting God: Rosewall was seeded 2nd at the 1972 US Open NOT because he would have been the 1971 No.1 player (he was ranked mostly No.3 or 4) but because he won the previous major, the 1972 Dallas final.
Click to expand...
You are trying to climb on glass walls, but it's hard, I know.

The U.S. Open is at end of August, obviously they can't use the rankings of December to run the seeds. (Neither in 2017 they do that!).
But for the first tournament of the year, hell yeah.

And again, if you still haven't got it, the example of Phila72 was to show that prestige was not used to compile that seeds , just the final standings in WCT finals (something "real", not a feeling of greatness).
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
abmk said:
Now let see how many sources @NoMercy will post (from the newspapers).
;)
Click to expand...
I have also sources for Newcombe and Rosewall, but that's not the point.
The point (that is clear to almost everybody apart of 2/3 maybe) is that there was no clear rankings, nor a package of rules to run them.
So it is legit to use alternative ways to the ones already explored.
It's not going against history.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Ivan69 said:
Guys, let's see what it is written in an article I found from the open part of the library of the American Congress:
"Newcombe and the panel of journalists which made the 1971 WCT draw considered Laver the best player because he won most tournaments (15), earned the most prize money and had a dominantly positive head-to-head record against both Rosewall (5–0) and Newcombe (3–0)." It concerns the 70 YE ranking.
Click to expand...
And this confirms one more time what Newcombe and WCT thought of 1970
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
Wait, WHAT? Laver was the #1 ranked WCT player right after 1970. How could that be? All of the "official, top, experts," ranked Laver 4th in 1970, no? Did they not know what they were talking about? Did the WCT have no respect for the "official top experts," of the early 70's?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the WCT knew that their rankings were more logical being based on numbers, and that the rankings of the “experts” were based on something else.?
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
Yes, many people had huge respect for the Double Grand Slammer plus Laver was the most prolific tournament winner also in the first years after 1969.
Click to expand...

But this is just speculation right? The seeding committee's could have just as easily been seeding Laver because they thought he was the best current player and #1 player.
 
T

thrust

Legend
BobbyOne said:
Since there are some rumors coming from our Laver fanboys (Laver Oldboy Limpin etc) that Laver was the best player in 1970, 1971, 1972 and maybe another few years afterwards, here the balance of the "best player" of the world at major tournaments 1970 to 1972:

Laver played the 1970 Wimbledon and finished in fourth round. He played the 1970 US Open and finished in fourth round. He entered the 1971 AO and finished in third round. He entered the 1971 Wimbledon and finished in QFs. He played the 1971 WCT Finals and lost in the final. He entered the 1972 WCT FInals and lost in the final. He entered the 1972 US Open and finished in fourth round. Balance: No win; 2 finals; no SF

As a comparison with the truly best player of that period, Rosewall entered the 1970 Wimbledon: reached final; he entered the 1970 US Open: won title; he played in the 1971 AO: won title; he entered the 1971 Wimbledon: reached SFs; he entered the 1971 WCT Finals: won title; he played in the 1972 AO: won title; he played in the 1972 WCT Finals: won title; he entered the 1972 US Open: lost in second round. Balance: 5 wins; 1 final; 1 SF

It's fair to mention that Laver did win a few "almost majors": 1970 TCC, 1970 Dunlop Sydney; 1971 TCC.

Just for our posting God: Rosewall was seeded 2nd at the 1972 US Open NOT because he would have been the 1971 No.1 player (he was ranked mostly No.3 or 4) but because he won the previous major, the 1972 Dallas final.
Click to expand...
Another important fact IS that Ken was 35 years old in 70 when he began winning those major titles.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
no, neither of us said that.

"I see the 8 players of Dallas (first eight players in the WCT 1971 rankings) named the first 8 seeds of Phialdelphia, in THE SAME EXACT ORDER of the Wct Finals results."

In 71, Newk was most widely regarded as #1. Smith, Rosewall and Laver had claims as well.



yes, obviously.

71 had both WCT and Grand Prix. So you'd have to look at both to decide #1. (+Davis Cup)

-------

there are 2 different instances he used to show his overall point :

1. start of 71 WCT --- seedings were based on overall performance in 1970.
2. start of 72 WCT -- seedings were based on the order in which the WCT finals ended. Hence Rosewall, Laver, Okker, Ashe etc.

The overall point being they based it (seeding) on performance in tournaments in the previous year.
Click to expand...

abmk, No Mercy's thesis (wrong thesis) was that the seedings, at least the early one of a given year, were made according to the rankings in the previous year. Now he argues that the seedings were according to the WCT series. That's a contradiction in itself.

I doubt that Laver or Rosewall was ranked No.1 in 1971 (but I rank Smith, Rosewall and Newcombe equally first).
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
So now, we have from dwrightcharles :

(https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...number-1-for-1970.256340/page-4#post-10843265)

Martini Rossi award – 10 journalists

1 Rosewall (97 pts) – i.e. at least 7 first place votes out of 10 rankers
2 Laver (89 pts) – probably 3 first place votes?
3 Newcombe (81 pts)
4 Roche (averages to 70 pts)
5 Ashe (averages to 60 pts)
6 Richey (averages to 50 pts)
7 Okker (averages to 40 pts)
8 Emerson (averages to 30 pts)
9 Nastase (averages to 20 pts)
10 Gimeno (averages to 10 pts)


World Tennis – Joe McCauley

1 Newcombe
2 Rosewall
3 Roche
4 Laver
5 Ashe
6 Nastase
7 Okker
8 Kodes
9 Taylor
10 Richey


Bud Collins

1 Newcombe
2 Rosewall
3 Roche
4 Laver
5 Nastase
6 Okker
7 Richey
8 Smith
9 Ashe
10 Gimeno


Rino Tommasi

1 Rosewall
2 Newcombe
3 Laver
4 Roche
5 Ashe
6 Richey
7 Smith
8 Nastase
9 Okker
10 Kodes


And then some partial rankings


Judith Elian of L’equipe

1 Rosewall
2 Newcombe
3 Roche
4 Laver


WCT Panel of early 1971
1 Laver
2 Rosewall
3 Newcombe


The London Times

1 Laver


John Newcombe (as ranker in his book)

1 Laver


Lance Tingay

1 Newcombe
2 Rosewall


Robert Geist

1 Newcombe – tie
1 Rosewall – tie
1 Laver – tie


Following the method of the Martini-Rossi award, we can summarize the opinion by giving 10 pts for 1st place, 9 pts for 2nd, 8 pts for 3rd, etc for each of the above lists. Where there is a tie, the tied positions are added together and each player gets the average. Where the list is incomplete, I have assumed that unlisted players score at the highest possible unlisted position... thus for Tingay’s rankings I tally 8 pts for both Laver and Roche as potential third placers... but I only did this for the top four spots, since those are the only spots in which the potential #1’s figure. For the totals below, the 5-10 spots are based on the complete top-10 lists only.


Here’s how it adds up:

1 Rosewall 180 pts = 97+9+9+10+10+9+9+9+9+9 (of which there were at least 9.33 first place votes)
2 Laver 165 pts = 89+7+7+8+7+10+10+10+8+9 (probably 6.33 first place votes)
3 Newcombe 164 pts = 81+10+10+9+9+8+9+9+10+9 (probably 3.33 first place votes)

----------------------

Now , based on the info got recently,

1. Tingay rated Laver as #3 ( so that remains at 8 points). (BobbyOne mentioned this and NoMercy gave the full ratings from the Daily Telegraph)

2. Collins rated at the end of 1970 had -- Laver at #1, Rosewall at #2, Newk at #3. Counting this equally as the ratings in his encyclopedia. (posted by Drob -- article in Boston Globe)

3. article in the Schenectady Gazette from 17. Dezember 1970, which says that Laver was voted the top international player of 1970. ( urban )

4. San Antonio Express, 18 Dec 1970.
Laver as #1 (NoMercy).

So going by that we now have :

Rosewall = 180+9+9 = 198
Laver = 165+10+10 = 185
Newk = 164+8+9 = 181

Rosewall being rated #1 by : atleast 7 in Martini Rossi, Tommassi, Judith Elian, Geist = 11

Laver being rated #1 by : probably 3 in Martini Rossi, WCT Panel of early 71, Bud Collins at end of 1970, London times, Geist, article in the Schenectady Gazette, article in San Antonio Express, Newk himself in his book = 10

Newk being rated #1 by : McCauley, Collins in his encyclopedia, Tingay, Geist = 4
Click to expand...

abmk, It's typically for you that you omit in your summary Bud Collins' ranking of Laver as No.4 which he used in all his books.

It's funny that you use the Schenectady newspaper. You should know that Tingay, Collins, McCauley were the foremost experts regarding ranking.

Tingay gave his ranking not only in Daily Telegraph but also in the important World of Tennis yearbooks.

It's curious that NoMercy insults the great experts but at the same time believes that the seeding people of various tournaments were more serious than them...
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Ivan69 said:
Guys, let's see what it is written in an article I found from the open part of the library of the American Congress:
"Newcombe and the panel of journalists which made the 1971 WCT draw considered Laver the best player because he won most tournaments (15), earned the most prize money and had a dominantly positive head-to-head record against both Rosewall (5–0) and Newcombe (3–0)." It concerns the 70 YE ranking.
Click to expand...

Ivan, Laver was ranked No.1 for the WCT circuit especially because he won the WCT TCC in 1970.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
You are trying to climb on glass walls, but it's hard, I know.

The U.S. Open is at end of August, obviously they can't use the rankings of December to run the seeds. (Neither in 2017 they do that!).
But for the first tournament of the year, hell yeah.

And again, if you still haven't got it, the example of Phila72 was to show that prestige was not used to compile that seeds , just the final standings in WCT finals (something "real", not a feeling of greatness).
Click to expand...

No comment anymore. For me you are too arrogant. Get serious finally!!!
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
Perhaps the WCT knew that their rankings were more logical being based on numbers, and that the rankings of the “experts” were based on something else.?
Click to expand...

hoodjem, You "forget" that Wimbledon and US Open did not count for any WCT ranking.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
But this is just speculation right? The seeding committee's could have just as easily been seeding Laver because they thought he was the best current player and #1 player.
Click to expand...

But they were more biased than the top experts who were not obliged to promote their tournaments.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Another important fact IS that Ken was 35 years old in 70 when he began winning those major titles.
Click to expand...

thrust, I agree of course. Ken's run in those three years was and still is unequalled in tennis history! We only can bow to the Little Master.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Best record in non-grand slam major tournaments since 1970
Replies
1
Views
2K
urban
U
dwightcharles
Victory points - comparing open era titles
2
Replies
78
Views
4K
KG1965
K
BGod
  • Poll
Redo the ATP Rankings.
Replies
27
Views
2K
smoledman
smoledman
T
Defacto Masters 1000 totals for the top open era players
Replies
8
Views
1K
Russeljones
Russeljones
Tennis old man
Old thread about Nastase
Replies
22
Views
3K
kiki
kiki
Top